well i read it and did not think about it the way you did.
the reason i didn't is that it does have a crank throw and
there is no transmission betwen the crank throw and output
shaft they are all one part. In your aircraft engine there
is a transmission(I think correct me if i am wrong). If you
take off the transmission i suspect the engine could still
run as long as the starter etc was still hooked up. On the
rotary there are 7 moving parts and you can't remove any and
have it run. I am thinking something gets lost in the
conversion from rotary to piston, might be the reason they
use 2.1 and 2.2 for a conversion factor in SCCA and FIA I
would love to be a fly on the wall when they discuss this
issue (SCCA and FIA). In the airplane scenario there is a
true tranmission or drop gear to bring the outout shaft rpm
of the engine down to something useable for a prop. In a
rotary the output shaft is the same one that the rotor runs
on unlike the aircraft engine. Thats my take on it anyway.
Am I correct in saying that the crankshaft and the output
shaft on these large aircraft engines are not the same part,
ie I could have the crankshaft in CT and someone could have
the output shaft in CA ? yet I could still start the engine
up in CT..
Dave Dahlgren
Richard Fox wrote:
>
> Dave; You are ignoring what I said. I said it fires all 3 chambers in one
> full revolution of the ROTOR. I am not relating displacement to crankshaft
> revolutions in this discussion. In no other place that I know of is
> displacement related to degrees of output shaft rotation. Back to the 3350s
> I used to work on they fired all 18 cylinders in two times around but the
> output shaft had turned less than 720 degrees because of internal gearing.
> They were still 3350 cubic inch engines. You can't stick a crank throw in a
> Wankel trapezoid because of the weird way it rolls around in its housing.
> But the resulting gear reduction is no way more pertinent than any other
> gear reduction between my power source and my tires. At least until now the
> SCTA has measured displacement at the power head not at the output shaft.
> Rich
> ---Original Message-----
> From: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> To: Richard Fox <v4gr@rcn.com>
> Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Rules/wankel engine size factor.........
>
> >Well it does not work that way.on a 2 rotor It really does
> >fire 2 rotor faces in 1 crankshaft reveoluton..In 2 revs it
> >fires 4 and in 3 revs it fires all 6 faces on a 2 rotor
> >engine. I have no reason to kid anyone about this at all. I
> >have a small dos based program that shows exactly how 1
> >rotor works.If you are interested i will send it to you as
> >an attachment. the program is about 50k long so should only
> >take a minute or 2 to download.
> >Dave Dahlgren
> >
> >Richard Fox wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave; Calm down, I have read all of your postings and have not disagreed
> >> here or otherwise with your thoughts. I am only correcting a
> misconception
> >> that there is a difference between 2 and 4 stroke engines in the rules. I
> am
> >> not claiming any of this as my logic but only trying to explain the logic
> >> that was used at the time and to my understanding. I do believe that each
> >> chamber fires once in each revolution of the rotor, if not the output
> shaft,
> >> and fail to see where I made my error. If you can correct me briefly or
> at
> >> length off list I would welcome the education. I knew I was making a
> >> mistake. Rich Fox--Original Message-----
> >> From: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> >> To: Richard Fox <v4gr@rcn.com>
> >> Cc: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>; Keith Turk <kturk@ala.net>;
> >> land-speed@autox.team.net <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> >> Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:42 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Rules/wankel engine size factor.........
> >>
> >> >THAT MAY BE THE YOUR LOGIC BUT IT S A MYTH.....IT IS NOT THE
> >> >WAY THE ENGINE WORKS PERIOD! PLEASE READ MOST OF THE
> >> >PREVIOUS POSTS I SENT ON HOW THIS THING WORKS THERE OUGHT TO
> >> >BE ABOUT 50 OF THEM...
> >> >DAVE DAHLGREN
> >> >
> >> >Richard Fox wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I know this is a mistake but, As I remember it the logic for the X3
> for
> >> >> rotaries is that they have 3 chambers that roughly relate to cylinders
> in
> >> a
> >> >> reciprocating engine. Each chamber fires once on one rotation of the
> >> rotor.
> >> >> So the volume of one chamber is measured at the greatest displacement
> and
> >> >> than multiplied by 3. As it would be done with a 3 cylinder recip. No
> >> >> handicap or advantage is allowed for two of four stroke engines that I
> am
> >> >> aware of. Its simply the volume of the thing without regard to
> >> efficiency.
> >> >> Dan can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think SCTA differentiates
> >> >> between 2 and 4 stroke engines or ones that go up and down and ones
> that
> >> go
> >> >> round and round. Rich Fox
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>
> >> >> To: Keith Turk <kturk@ala.net>
> >> >> Cc: land-speed@autox.team.net <land-speed@autox.team.net>
> >> >> Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 09:57 AM
> >> >> Subject: Re: Rules/wankel engine size factor.........
> >> >>
> >> >> >Keith & list,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Of course you have a vote! Now with the internet more than ever. We
> have
> >> >> >covered this before but, for the new people here we go.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is available at each SCTA/BNI/USFRA meet a Rule Change form.
> This
> >> is
> >> >> >in the registration/impound area. It is not a requirement that this
> form
> >> be
> >> >> >used.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is published in the rule book a rule change cutoff date, this
> is
> >> >> >usually the end of October. This gives me time to collect all the
> >> requests,
> >> >> >put them into order and prepare the rules committee members for up
> >> coming
> >> >> >meetings. We generally have two meetings in November to discuss and
> >> >> >formulate proposed rules changes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I then put these changes into the format they will appear in the
> >> rulebook
> >> >> to
> >> >> >present to the Board of Directors for voting at the first meeting in
> >> >> >December. This will ensure that the rulebook can be published in
> >> January.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is a published list of Committee Chairpersons in the SCTA
> >> newsletter,
> >> >> >the Straightaway News. These people can be contacted for any rules
> >> >> >clarifications or suggested change input. The head tech persons for
> 2001
> >> >> >will again be Steve Batchelor for cars and Dale Martin for
> motorcycles.
> >> >> >Their contact information can be found in the 2000 rulebook. If they
> >> cannot
> >> >> >answer a question they can point you to the correct committee for a
> more
> >> >> >detailed explanation. All committee and board persons are unpaid
> >> >> volunteers.
> >> >> >Unfortunately we cannot force a volunteer to become internet active.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >With the advent of the internet and this list our little world has
> >> become
> >> >> >ever smaller. Way back in the '70s when I started LSR the rules were
> >> done
> >> >> in
> >> >> >one night by two people from Southern Cal. and approved without
> >> question.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Our rules committee now has representation from each category,
> Special
> >> >> >Construction, Vintage, etc., the USFRA and the ECTA. Through email
> ideas
> >> >> can
> >> >> >be freely exchanged and valuable input from the entrants evaluated.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Plans are being formulated for 2001 to improve the process by
> addressing
> >> >> >each suggestion as it is proposed and becoming proactive. We will put
> >> all
> >> >> >valid change suggestions out to committee for review as it comes in.
> >> This
> >> >> >way the suggested change can become a solid recommendation with input
> >> from
> >> >> >the originator and other interested parties.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >When making a change suggestion it is helpful that you do some
> research.
> >> >> >Indicate the old rule and why you think it should be changed with
> >> >> >suggestions as to how it should be changed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I think I have run on enough - if there any questions pertaining to
> the
> >> >> >rules process, please feel free to post them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Dan Warner
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >> >From: Keith Turk <kturk@ala.net>
> >> >> >To: Dave Dahlgren <ddahlgren@snet.net>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>;
> Lee
> >> >> >Kennedy <leekenn@pacbell.net>; Dan Warner <dwarner@electrorent.com>;
> >> Mike
> >> >> >Manghelli <mmanghel@hughes.net>
> >> >> >Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 5:18 AM
> >> >> >Subject: Re: Rules/wankel engine size factor.........
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Dave I really don't have a dog in this fight... But I would like to
> >> see
> >> >> >some
> >> >> >> of the questions you posed answered....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Like how do I change a Rule? What are the Procedures? Who do I
> >> contact?
> >> >> >> What do I have to Write? What Proof has to be Given of my claim?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And in My humble opinion..... DO WE HAVE A VOICE?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I think all concerned here agree that the whole Bonneville
> Experience
> >> is
> >> >> >an
> >> >> >> Amatuer and Volunteer effort.... As such do the folks seeking
> records
> >> on
> >> >> >the
> >> >> >> salt have a Voice? Can we submit and or seek changes to the
> rules...
> >> and
> >> >> >if
> >> >> >> we do can we expect a fair and honest appraisal of our words? I
> think
> >> >> >it's
> >> >> >> important to the health of our sport...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Keith Turk
> >> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> >> From: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
> >> >> >> To: <land-speed@autox.team.net>; "Lee Kennedy"
> <leekenn@pacbell.net>;
> >> >> "Dan
> >> >> >> Warner" <dwarner@electrorent.com>; "Mike Cook"
> <beauty1@hughes.net>;
> >> >> "Mike
> >> >> >> Manghelli" <mmanghel@hughes.net>
> >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 7:06 AM
> >> >> >> Subject: Re: Rules/wankel engine size factor.........
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > To all that might be interested...
> >> >> >> > It's been over 24 hrs... Not a word although 178 previous
> >> >> >> > e-mails on the subject not counting the ones i wrote.... Not
> >> >> >> > even a public show of hands from people here that are in
> >> >> >> > support, against and or think this needs to be addressed..
> >> >> >> > message received.. I have my own theories as to why it is so
> >> >> >> > quiet on this subject, but in general for peace and harmony
> >> >> >> > and good will to all i think the wise thing to do is just
> >> >> >> > keep them to myself. everybody have a good day, stand tall
> >> >> >> > if you can and if you can't, avoid mirrors as they never
> >> >> >> > lie.
> >> >> >> > Dave Dahlgren (where it is 8:00 am EST)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Dave Dahlgren wrote:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > It has been said that there is a rules meeting in Jan. What
> >> >> >> > > do I have to do to bring up a rules change for the
> >> >> >> > > Wankel(aka rotary) engine size factor for serious
> >> >> >> > > discussion? It has been e-mailed to death all over this
> >> >> >> > > group and to many individuals with all sorts of information
> >> >> >> > > to support it. can this be done via e-mail? if so to whom? i
> >> >> >> > > honestly think that waiting another year is a complete
> >> >> >> > > dis-service to the members of the LSR community that are
> >> >> >> > > interested or might consider building a car that uses on of
> >> >> >> > > these cheap and readily available power plants.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > So how is it done?
> >> >> >> > > Can it be done?
> >> >> >> > > Can it be done by phone or fax or e-mail?
> >> >> >> > > Is there any interest in changing this rule?
> >> >> >> > > Is there any information lacking that has not been passed
> >> >> >> > > around on the net?
> >> >> >> > > Does anyone that makes the rules have any questions at all
> >> >> >> > > or is there any info that I have left out in all the
> >> >> >> > > e-mails?
> >> >> >> > > Out of the people that have been included in this e-mail is
> >> >> >> > > anyone that helps make these decisions been left out?
> >> >> >> > > If so how are they contacted?
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > I am hoping for a free exchange of ideas on this subject
> >> >> >> > > with some honest thought involved that is based on facts not
> >> >> >> > > history and personal feelings. I personally find it very
> >> >> >> > > hard to believe that FIA and SCCA is all screwed up in their
> >> >> >> > > use of engine factors of 2.1......... They have very good
> >> >> >> > > engineers that work on these subjects on a regular basis and
> >> >> >> > > represent both national and inter-national competition.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > If the answers to the above questions are no there is no
> >> >> >> > > interest and there is no desire to change anything or even
> >> >> >> > > consider any change for the benefit of the LSR community or
> >> >> >> > > to align SCTA with the rest of the world, please do me a
> >> >> >> > > small favor, actually two small favors.
> >> >> >> > > First is let that feeling be known publicly on the net at
> >> >> >> > > this e-mail group accompanied with the reasons why it can
> >> >> >> > > not or will not be changed along with the facts that made
> >> >> >> > > this decision the correct one.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > The other favor is small but personal, please leave off any
> >> >> >> > > personal attacks. I am not up to another tirade of being
> >> >> >> > > called a "Hot Shot wanna-be engineer" or sending out a bunch
> >> >> >> > > of crap! I do at times find great humor in it though when i
> >> >> >> > > watch Speedvision and ESPN and cars that I have supplied
> >> >> >> > > parts, done design work or personally tuned are very busy
> >> >> >> > > winning.....
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Dave Dahlgren
|